IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i4d10.1007_s40273-019-00865-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference-Based Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes Associated with Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Stavros Petrou

    (University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter
    University of Warwick)

  • Natnaree Krabuanrat

    (University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter)

  • Kamran Khan

    (University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter)

Abstract

Objectives Assessments of health-related quality of life outcomes associated with preterm birth provide valuable complementary data to the objective biomedical assessments that have traditionally been reported. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of health utility values associated with preterm birth generated using preference-based approaches to health-related quality of life measurement. Methods Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Web of Science, EconLit, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and SCOPUS were performed, covering the literature from inception of the search engines to 26 June 2018. Studies reporting health utility values estimated using either direct or indirect utility elicitation methods and published in the English language were included. Central descriptive statistics and measures of variability surrounding health utility values for each study and control group, and differences between comparator groups, are reported for each included article. The effect of preterm birth on health utility values was estimated using a hierarchical linear model in a linear mixed-effects meta-regression. Results Of 2139 unique articles retrieved, 20 articles met the inclusion criteria. All but one study used the Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 2 (HUI2) or Mark 3 (HUI3) measures as their primary health utility assessment method. All studies reporting health utility values for individuals born preterm or at low birthweight and a control group of individuals born at full term or normal birthweight reported lower utility values in the study groups, regardless of age at assessment, respondent type or valuation method. The meta-regression revealed that preterm birth was associated with a mean utility decrement of 0.066 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.035–0.098; p

Suggested Citation

  • Stavros Petrou & Natnaree Krabuanrat & Kamran Khan, 2020. "Preference-Based Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes Associated with Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 357-373, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00865-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00865-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00865-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-019-00865-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Feeny, David & Furlong, William & Saigal, Saroj & Sun, Jian, 2004. "Comparing directly measured standard gamble scores to HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores: group- and individual-level comparisons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 799-809, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe, 2015. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments for Paediatric Populations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(10), pages 1013-1028, October.
    2. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    3. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Vilija R. Joyce & Paul G. Barnett & Adam Chow & Ahmed M. Bayoumi & Susan C. Griffin & Huiying Sun & Mark Holodniy & Sheldon T. Brown & Tassos C. Kyriakides & D. William Cameron & Mike Youle & Mark Scu, 2012. "Effect of Treatment Interruption and Intensification of Antiretroviral Therapy on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced HIV," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 70-82, January.
    5. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    6. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.
    7. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    8. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    11. Zhongliang Zhou & Yu Fang & Zhiying Zhou & Dan Li & Dan Wang & Yanli Li & Li Lu & Jianmin Gao & Gang Chen, 2017. "Assessing Income-Related Health Inequality and Horizontal Inequity in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 241-256, May.
    12. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    13. David J. Mott & Nancy J. Devlin & Simone Kreimeier & Richard Norman & Koonal K. Shah & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2022. "Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 129-137, December.
    14. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    15. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.
    16. Louis S. Matza & Katherine J. Kim & Holly Yu & Katherine A. Belden & Antonia F. Chen & Mark Kurd & Bruce Y. Lee & Jason Webb, 2019. "Health state utilities associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus infections," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 819-827, August.
    17. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    18. Hausman, Daniel M., 2023. "Eliciting preferences and respecting values: Why ask?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    19. Richard Cookson & Owen Cotton-Barrett & Matthew Adler & Miqdad Asaria & Toby Ord, 2016. "Years of good life based on income and health: Re-engineering cost-benefit analysis to examine policy impacts on wellbeing and distributive justice," Working Papers 132cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    20. Tara Lavelle & Eve Wittenberg & Kara Lamarand & Lisa Prosser, 2014. "Variation in the Spillover Effects of Illness on Parents, Spouses, and Children of the Chronically Ill," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 117-124, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00865-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.